 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Abstinence from Consumption |
|
Page 4 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:21 am |
|
|
|
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:f6b2441a85]On 12 Oct 2005 21:47:07 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 07:37:23 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 13:35:33 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Doesn't this mean that the Financial system is inherently at odds with
wage levels? Is it wise to systemicaly model Capital formation in such
a way that personal income reduction is more profitable to the
financial elite than personal savings?
You are thinking of wages as if there's something special
about the price of labor placing it outside the relm of
supply and demand. There isn't.
While with perect competion labour may well be able to command it's
entire contribution to production as it's wage, economic Rents on both
natural and artificialy created scarce inputs skews the normal market
price mechanism, allowing Rent seekers to draw unearned income from the
productive cycle.
Unearned? According to who?
Benefits obtained in return for no contribution are by definition
unearned.
[/quote:f6b2441a85]
Quirk has used the example of a landlord in a large city versus a
landlord in a small town. But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money, and if you want to
become a landlord in a small town you will have to pay very little
money (to buy the building or house or to buy the land area and build
it). Thus your contribution will be much greater in a large city than
in a small town.
That is not "no contribution".
[quote:f6b2441a85]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
[/quote:f6b2441a85]
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:cfa9769d3e]Ricardo certainly believed it was unearned, as his theory
of Rent illustrates.
[/quote:cfa9769d3e]
Declaring rent to be unearned income is a categorical decision, but
shouldn't have moral weight.
[quote:cfa9769d3e]Do you have a quote where he indicates he thinks unearned income
is proper, justified, necessary and not exploitive for us to discuss?
[/quote:cfa9769d3e]
Ricardo says: "It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in
quantity and uniform in quality, and because in the progress of
population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously
situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the
use of it."
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Peterson wrote:
[quote:9bb2089922]Quirk wrote:
Ricardo certainly believed it was unearned, as his theory
of Rent illustrates.
Declaring rent to be unearned income is a categorical decision, but
shouldn't have moral weight.
[/quote:9bb2089922]
The question was "Who says it's unearned?"
[quote:9bb2089922]Do you have a quote where he indicates he thinks unearned income
is proper, justified, necessary and not exploitive for us to discuss?
Ricardo says: "It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in
quantity and uniform in quality, and because in the progress of
population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously
situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the
use of it."
[/quote:9bb2089922]
Thanks for the random Ricardo quote. Is there a point that goes with
it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:497bb2f278]But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
[/quote:497bb2f278]
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
That is why Rent is considered unearned income.
Both the landlord in the small town and the landlord in the big city
provide the same contribution to the economy, yet only the landlord in
the big city gets to pocket the Rental value of being in the big city.
A value he did not create, therefore a income he has not earned.
[quote:497bb2f278]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue.
[/quote:497bb2f278]
It is the issue.
Wm is saying that labour is only worth whatever the market pays it,
this assumes perfect competition, which is a false assumption. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:f81b199003]Ron Peterson wrote:
Quirk wrote:
Ricardo certainly believed it was unearned, as his theory
of Rent illustrates.
Declaring rent to be unearned income is a categorical decision, but
shouldn't have moral weight.
The question was "Who says it's unearned?"
[/quote:f81b199003]
I am saying that rent and interest are commonly held to be unearned
because they aren't a result of labor. But, I think that you are
implying that rent is also undeserved (an alternative definition of
unearned).
[quote:f81b199003]Do you have a quote where he indicates he thinks unearned income
is proper, justified, necessary and not exploitive for us to discuss?
Ricardo says: "It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in
quantity and uniform in quality, and because in the progress of
population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously
situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the
use of it."
Thanks for the random Ricardo quote. Is there a point that goes with
it?
[/quote:f81b199003]
I think that Ricardo is implying that rent is a proper and necessary
part of an economy. Or, is there some other quote that implies the
opposite?
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:e444134dc9]constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
[/quote:e444134dc9]
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money. And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
[quote:e444134dc9]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
[/quote:e444134dc9]
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
Similarly, a Mexican laborer who sneaks across the border to the US,
goes to a land where his same unskilled labor fetches a far better
price than it does in Mexico, and better than it did in the 19th
century and much better than in the 18th century even in the US itself.
The laborer did not increase the value of that labor himself: it was
the entire that increased its value. Yet only the laborer gets to
pocket this increase.
[quote:e444134dc9]That is why Rent is considered unearned income.
[/quote:e444134dc9]
And yet the same phenomenon occurs with wages for labor.
[quote:e444134dc9]Both the landlord in the small town and the landlord in the big city
provide the same contribution to the economy,
[/quote:e444134dc9]
No they do not, as explained above. It is much more expensive to become
a landlord in a big city than to become a landlord in a small town. You
have to contribute a lot more.
[quote:e444134dc9]yet only the landlord in
the big city gets to pocket the Rental value of being in the big city.
A value he did not create, therefore a income he has not earned.
If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue.
It is the issue.
Wm is saying that labour is only worth whatever the market pays it,
[/quote:e444134dc9]
That's the definition of what it's worth.
[quote:e444134dc9]this assumes perfect competition, which is a false assumption.
[/quote:e444134dc9]
No it does not. It applies a certain definition of worth - namely, the
price something can fetch on the market.
You can, of course, if you so desire, propose other definitions of
value. However, economically literate individuals are unlikely to agree
to them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:7d80fc4430]constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money. And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
[quote:7d80fc4430]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
Similarly, a Mexican laborer who sneaks across the border to the US,
goes to a land where his same unskilled labor fetches a far better
price than it does in Mexico, and better than it did in the 19th
century and much better than in the 18th century even in the US itself.
The laborer did not increase the value of that labor himself: it was
the entire community that increased its value. Yet only the laborer
gets to pocket this increase.
[quote:7d80fc4430]That is why Rent is considered unearned income.
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
And yet the same phenomenon occurs with wages for labor.
[quote:7d80fc4430]Both the landlord in the small town and the landlord in the big city
provide the same contribution to the economy,
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
No they do not, as explained above. It is much more expensive to become
a landlord in a big city than to become a landlord in a small town. You
have to contribute a lot more.
[quote:7d80fc4430]yet only the landlord in
the big city gets to pocket the Rental value of being in the big city.
A value he did not create, therefore a income he has not earned.
If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue.
It is the issue.
Wm is saying that labour is only worth whatever the market pays it,
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
That's the definition of what it's worth.
[quote:7d80fc4430]this assumes perfect competition, which is a false assumption.
[/quote:7d80fc4430]
No it does not. It applies a certain definition of worth - namely, the
price something can fetch on the market.
You can, of course, if you so desire, propose other definitions of
value. However, economically literate individuals are unlikely to agree
to them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:555173fc8d]Quirk wrote:
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
Doesn't matter.
[/quote:555173fc8d]
Of course it matters.
If I pay a sum of money to a racketeer to buy his turf
and take over his shaking down of small businesses does
my racket suddenly become an economic contribution just
because I paid for this privilege?
Of course not.
That the current big city landlord bought the rights to this
unearned income fromsome previous landlord, doesn't make this
income any more earned.
[quote:555173fc8d]You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
[/quote:555173fc8d]
And the entire community has the right to also acquire and
sell this knowledge indpendently of me.
Not so with Land.
Unless this "knowledge" is made artificially rivalrous by way
of Intellectual Property. In which case, this too would
contain Rent, and thus to that certain degree be unearned.
[quote:555173fc8d]No it does not. It applies a certain definition of worth - namely, the
price something can fetch on the market.
[/quote:555173fc8d]
Which is meaningless if the market is fixed. With this logic, a
Slave's labour was really worth nothing, since nothing was he
got for it.
[quote:555173fc8d]You can, of course, if you so desire, propose other definitions of
value. However, economically literate individuals are unlikely to agree
to them.
[/quote:555173fc8d]
Ok, whatever, you "economically literate individual" you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
--
On 14 Oct 2005 01:00:34 -0700, "Quirk"
<quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:dcb0946ce7]And what is the relevance of Marx here? Both Smith and
Ricardo considered labour the source of value.
[/quote:dcb0946ce7]
Liar.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
FrBhBRR+E3/VMRWjLxiUhsrtGHk+3fly/MHXagWl
4ElWsYqKVWAx69VwTGV1enusqCCSlOVVxEqvAYDpw
--
http://www.jim.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote:
[quote:75d7c7bfca]Liar.
[/quote:75d7c7bfca]
What a convincing argument you make. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 14 Oct 2005 08:21:12 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:933ba291af]royls@telus.net wrote:
On 12 Oct 2005 21:47:07 -0500, Wm James
wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 07:37:23 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Wm James wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 13:35:33 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
Doesn't this mean that the Financial system is inherently at odds with
wage levels? Is it wise to systemicaly model Capital formation in such
a way that personal income reduction is more profitable to the
financial elite than personal savings?
You are thinking of wages as if there's something special
about the price of labor placing it outside the relm of
supply and demand. There isn't.
While with perect competion labour may well be able to command it's
entire contribution to production as it's wage, economic Rents on both
natural and artificialy created scarce inputs skews the normal market
price mechanism, allowing Rent seekers to draw unearned income from the
productive cycle.
Unearned? According to who?
Benefits obtained in return for no contribution are by definition
unearned.
Quirk has used the example of a landlord in a large city versus a
landlord in a small town.
[/quote:933ba291af]
I don't know about the example, it may not be a good one. But I know
about economic rent.
[quote:933ba291af]But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money, and if you want to
become a landlord in a small town you will have to pay very little
money (to buy the building or house or to buy the land area and build
it).
[/quote:933ba291af]
Economic rent does not apply to the buildings, only the land. The
fact that one must pay for the privilege of getting land rent in
return for no contribution is the whole point of the term, "rent
seeking behavior."
[quote:933ba291af]Thus your contribution will be much greater in a large city than
in a small town.
[/quote:933ba291af]
There is no contribution by the landowner qua landowner in either
case.
[quote:933ba291af]That is not "no contribution".
[/quote:933ba291af]
?? Of course it is no contribution. The land would have been there,
just the same, even if the landowner had never been born. So what has
he contributed? Current landowner B has simply paid previous
landowner A for the privilege of getting rent from C for what nature
provided free of charge. But B did not create the land, and neither
did A, and neither did any previous owner. They all simply bought and
sold the privilege of collecting the rent in return for making no
contribution.
[quote:933ba291af]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue.
[/quote:933ba291af]
When Wm James claimed that labor by definition merits no more pay than
whatever it gets, he was _making_ the government-imposed labor market
environment the issue.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 14 Oct 2005 14:52:27 -0700, constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
[quote:2e8d001d2a]Quirk wrote:
constantinopoli@gmail.com wrote:
But if you want to become a landlord in a
large city you will have to pay a lot of money,
Pay who? What did they do to earn the money?
Doesn't matter. It's quite possible they earned the money, therefore it
is false to say flatly that they did not earn the money.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
?? No one is saying they haven't earned the money. Whether they
earned the money or not is irrelevant to the fact that _buying_ land
does not _contribute_ any land. The land was already there. The
buying just transfers the privilege of collecting something for
nothing (the rent) from A to B.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]And so the
theory that the landlord did not contribute is thereby exploded.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
It is not a theory. It is an indisputable fact. The land would have
been there anyway, therefore the landowner did not contribute it.
Case closed.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]The entire community contributes to the growth in land value, yet only
the land owner gets to pocked this increase.
Not if he bought the land when it was already valuable.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
It could not matter less how much he paid for it. What he bought was
simply the privilege of collecting the rent in return for doing
nothing.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]But now you are talking about something that increases in market value
over time. That happens with human capital as well: if you are good at
some field, like some field of math or of physics or whatever, then
market conditions may change which make your knowledge much more
valuable than it was before. You did not create that growth in the
value of your own knowledge: it was the entire community.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
?? What are you talking about? You can't sell your knowledge or
collect rent for it. It is only useful if you use it to _produce_
something of value. By contrast, the landowner's land yields him rent
without him having to produce or contribute anything.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]Similarly, a Mexican laborer who sneaks across the border to the US,
goes to a land where his same unskilled labor fetches a far better
price than it does in Mexico, and better than it did in the 19th
century and much better than in the 18th century even in the US itself.
The laborer did not increase the value of that labor himself: it was
the entire that increased its value. Yet only the laborer gets to
pocket this increase.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
?? ROTFL!! That is of course completely false. He does not get to
pocket it. He must pay landowners for it, both for the land his
accommodation is on and (indirectly) the land he works on. He gets to
keep very little of the additional wage his labor commands, and
usually only by accepting a much lower quality of life than he would
have had in Mexico. Furthermore, the Mexican laborer's presence
exerts a downward influence on wages, and an upward ifluence on land
rents. It is landowners who benefit most from high wages, not the
nominal recipients of the wages.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]That is why Rent is considered unearned income.
And yet the same phenomenon occurs with wages for labor.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
No, of course it doesn't. Wages are paid in return for a
contribution. Rent is paid in return for no contribution.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]Both the landlord in the small town and the landlord in the big city
provide the same contribution to the economy,
No they do not, as explained above.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
Yes they do, as explained above: and it is zero.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]It is much more expensive to become
a landlord in a big city than to become a landlord in a small town. You
have to contribute a lot more.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
Paying a previous landowner for the privilege of collecting rent may
be considered a contribution to him, but it is not a contribution to
_production_. One can only _earn_ a share of production by making a
_contribution_ to production. That is the point.
By your "logic," paying for a slave to perform labor is also "making a
contribution." But no matter how much he may have paid for his slave,
it is not the slave's owner who is making the contribution to
production; it is the slave.
[quote:2e8d001d2a]If someone can't get a buyer at the
price he wants for ANYTHING, then his price is too high, he's asking
more than it's value. It doesn't matter why. If you can't get anyone
to pay you more than 10 cents an hour, then your labor is only worth
10 cents per hour. If that's because your work is so poor or because
there are a thousand others willing to work cheap, or because no one
has enough money to pay you any more, that's just tough.
Or because government effectively forbids a higher wage....?
The topic isn't how government skews the market. Of course the
government skews the market. That is not the issue.
It is the issue.
Wm is saying that labour is only worth whatever the market pays it,
That's the definition of what it's worth.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
No, it is not. That is the definition of its "price," not its
"worth."
[quote:2e8d001d2a]this assumes perfect competition, which is a false assumption.
No it does not. It applies a certain definition of worth - namely, the
price something can fetch on the market.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
?? So you think the worth of anything is identical to its price? How
do you explain the existence of arbitrage, then?
[quote:2e8d001d2a]You can, of course, if you so desire, propose other definitions of
value. However, economically literate individuals are unlikely to agree
to them.
[/quote:2e8d001d2a]
I would like to see some evidence for that claim.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 14 Oct 2005 09:41:56 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
[quote:803319e800]Quirk wrote:
Ricardo certainly believed it was unearned, as his theory
of Rent illustrates.
Declaring rent to be unearned income is a categorical decision, but
shouldn't have moral weight.
[/quote:803319e800]
It certainly should.
[quote:803319e800]Do you have a quote where he indicates he thinks unearned income
is proper, justified, necessary and not exploitive for us to discuss?
Ricardo says: "It is only, then, because land is not unlimited in
quantity and uniform in quality, and because in the progress of
population, land of an inferior quality, or less advantageously
situated, is called into cultivation, that rent is ever paid for the
use of it."
[/quote:803319e800]
?? Uh, that supports Quirk's claim that Ricardo considered rent to be
unearned.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14 October, Quirk writes:
[quote:f638e81c64]Robert Vienneau wrote:
Quirk wrote:
Here Quirk acknowledges he does not know what the neoclassical
theory of "forced savings" is about:
[Nonsense in which Quirk imagines himself royalty - deleted ]
Does Robert care to provide a citation of this neoclassical "forced
savings" theory you for which he is making reference?
On the internet, a reference to a keyword is generally a sufficient
word to the wise. Hasn't Quirk heard of Google? But very well:
It is not my responsibility to research your argument, it is your
responsibility to apply it. [nonsense - deleted]
[/quote:f638e81c64]
Here's how I brought up the topic of forced savings:
"I don't think I will pursue themes of 'forced saving'. That seems
to be the keyword in which Quirk would be interested."
I have no idea why Quirk would take that as offering an argument. I
certainly am not claiming that I am putting forth an argument there.
[quote:f638e81c64]-- Bjorn Hansson (1987). _New Palgrave_ .
If you knew this, then why did you not post this in response to my
question in the first place, [nonsense - deleted]
[/quote:f638e81c64]
The above reference was given in my response to Quirk's query,
"Does Robert care to provide a citation of this neoclassical
'forced savings' theory you for which he is making reference?"
Quirk would seem to want one to draw from his question, "If you
knew this..." some inferences on my responsiveness. But his question
is obviously based on false preferences.
[quote:f638e81c64][nonsense and stuff - deleted]
[nonsense - deleted ] my inquiry into forced
Savings is exactly to show that, in the cases I cite, Interest is
_not_ justified.
If Quirk thinks the theory of "forced savings" is not
"applicable",
Listen carefully muddlehead, it is the theory of Abstinence that I
am questioning the applicability of.
[nonsense - deleted.]
[/quote:f638e81c64]
I wrote:
"The theory of 'forced savings', which I took Quirk to be trying
to put forth, I take to be a 'later reworking' of the neoclassical
explanation of interest as the result of 'abstinence'."
Quirk did not dispute that the theory of forced savings is a 'later
reworking' of the neoclassical explanation of interest as the result
of 'abstinence'. This would make it a kind of cousin of the abstinence
theory. So here Quirk states that he questions the applicability of
the theory of forced savings:
"in my 'Forced Savings' inquiry, I too am _questioning_, not
advocating the applicability of the Abstinence theory of Interest
and its cousins."
-- Quirk
I had also written:
"Both theories are incorrect, as far as I am concerned."
That is to say, I asserted the incorrectness of the abstinence theory
and of the theory of forced savings. Among his nonsense, Quirk
wrote:
"I am also questioning the applicability of the theory."
And Quirk claimed he was agreeing with me.
Perhaps Quirk should figure out his own position.
[quote:f638e81c64]why does he care whether or not interest is or
is not "justified" in those imaginary economies in which the
theory applies?
I take Quirk to be claiming that
(1) If it were not for the money power or financial elites, then
the neoclassical abstinence theory would describe capitalist
economies. In this theory, "Capital" is formed by abstaining
from consumption and interest is the return to this activity
of "waiting".
[/quote:f638e81c64]
[quote:f638e81c64]I'm not for any sort of "capitalist" economies.
IMO, for interest to to be a return to abstention, first the worker
would need to retain the entire product of their labour. This would
mean at least the abolition of the Money monopoly, the Land monopoly,
Intellectual Property, Income Taxes, Consumption Taxes, Tarrifs. etc...
[/quote:f638e81c64]
What Quirk is advocating is the rconstruction of society to meet
some abstract blueprint. He is not addressing any concrete ills being
suffered today by any concrete persons. In my opinion, this is
neither helpful in understanding any actually existing societies
nor helpful in developing policy.
I am influenced in my steadfast anti-utopianism here by:
Marx, _The Poverty of Philosophy_
Marx and Engels, _The Development of Socialism from Utopia
to Science_ (The title has been translated otherwise)
Karl Popper, _The Open Society and Its Enemies_.
Quirk would find these helpful in coming to understand the weakness
of his views. I'd like to cite some Hayek here, too, but I'm not
sure what work. I take from Hayek that one cannot meaningfully
talk about the justness of distribution. That is, the following
is weak:
[quote:f638e81c64]Then, having retained the entire product of his labour, the worker
would need to voluntarily abstain with Interest as his direct reward,
like if he purchaced a Bond for instance.
We're sure a long way from that scenario.
[stuff and nonsense - deleted]
[/quote:f638e81c64]
I usually don't discuss political philosophy and the undesirability
of imposing blueprints on society. Instead, I point out the blueprints
are self-contradictory.
In this case, Quirk wants to retain the categories of capitalist
economies but abolish institutions of capitalist economies, thereby
obtaining true free markets. I find this whole approach confused.
But for a simpler self-contradiction, consider Figure 6 in:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/OnGaregnani1970.pdf>
Here delta is a parameter that expresses consumer's "present-mindedness"
or willingness to defer consumption. And this graph shows that sometimes
when consumers are more willing to defer consumption, the interest
rate is driven up. Yet in so-called neoclassical abstinence theory,
the interest rate should be driven down. Yet the assumptions
underlying this graph are consistent with the assumptions of so-called
neoclassical theory. Clearly, the theory is incorrect. And this has
been known for decades.
Quirk's response is to pretend a willingness to defer consumption
is not related to abstention from consumption. Or perhaps he is
pretending that a theoretical explanation of the return to
capital has nothing to say about the ratio of such returns to the
value of capital. I find his views confused.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Vienneau wrote:
[quote:1756950bf0]It is not my responsibility to research your argument, it is your
responsibility to apply it. [nonsense - deleted]
[/quote:1756950bf0]
Your argument was that the theory is false.
Yet, until the last post you did not even bother to let us know what
theory you are making reference to.
Even now that I know, I am still unable to find the text you quote on
google.
Could you at least furnish a link to this text? As this seems to be the
one relevant text you have presented. (And you only presented it, alas
without an url, after great effort on my part to draw it out of you)
As I said, Instead of prancing about making vague allusions and
unsubstantiated arguments, surrounded by copious, usually irrelevant
(although sometimes interesting) blathering, it would be more helpfull
if you applied your references to the topic at hand. Which you still
have not.
[quote:1756950bf0]I have no idea why Quirk would take that as offering an argument. I
certainly am not claiming that I am putting forth an argument there.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
You have claimed, multiple times, that the (until recently unpresented)
theory is false. That *is* an argument.
One you have not supported with any relevant reasoning.
Sigh.
[quote:1756950bf0]"The theory of 'forced savings', which I took Quirk to be trying
to put forth, I take to be a 'later reworking' of the neoclassical
explanation of interest as the result of 'abstinence'."
Quirk did not dispute that the theory of forced savings is a 'later
reworking' of the neoclassical explanation of interest as the result
of 'abstinence'.
This would make it a kind of cousin of the abstinence
theory. So here Quirk states that he questions the applicability of
the theory of forced savings:
"in my 'Forced Savings' inquiry, I too am _questioning_, not
advocating the applicability of the Abstinence theory of Interest
and its cousins."
-- Quirk
[/quote:1756950bf0]
You spend most of your time talking about me, rather than the topic. Or
nit-picking about some irrelevant detail, rather than making an
argument.
What does that say about you? One word describes it best: Ponce.
As I said, I had no knowledge of the Hansson theory you apparently were
talking with yourself about, the cousins I refer to are the later
formulations of
the Abstinence-like Theories, such as those of Menger, Boehm-Bawerk,
and Rothbard.
[quote:1756950bf0]I had also written:
"Both theories are incorrect, as far as I am concerned."
[/quote:1756950bf0]
You see, this is an argument, so what did you mean earlier when you
said "I certainly am not claiming that I am putting forth an argument
there."
You mean you are not //substantiating// an argument. Just making
pompous, baseless claims. For who knows what purpose.
I suppose now you will equivocate over something else, like the meaning
of the word "argument."
[quote:1756950bf0]Among his nonsense, Quirk
wrote:
"I am also questioning the applicability of the theory."
And Quirk claimed he was agreeing with me.
Perhaps Quirk should figure out his own position.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
I am certain that nobody reading this thread other than you has any
trouble understanding my position, as It's been the same since the
first article, and has been reiterated often.
I have, from the begining, been questioning the justification of
Interest as a return to Abstinence in the cases I've listed.
Why you are unable to comprehend this is beyond me.
[quote:1756950bf0]IMO, for interest to to be a return to abstention, first the worker
would need to retain the entire product of their labour. This would
mean at least the abolition of the Money monopoly, the Land monopoly,
Intellectual Property, Income Taxes, Consumption Taxes, Tarrifs. etc...
What Quirk is advocating is the rconstruction of society to meet
some abstract blueprint. He is not addressing any concrete ills being
suffered today by any concrete persons. In my opinion, this is
neither helpful in understanding any actually existing societies
nor helpful in developing policy.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
ROTFL!!!
Notice how unconnected your response is, not making a reference to
anything I said, but instead using vague generalistions?
Hillarious.. . *my* asbtract blueprint. All you do is mumble
incoherently, while being unable to make or follow an actual point.
You make incoherent reference to unrelated graphs.
I talk about workers. I guess you think workers are not "concrete
persons."
You appear comepletely disconnected from "actually existing societies".
Hell you can not seem to stay connected to an "actual existing
discusion."
No doubt, from your plainly sociopathic conversation style, you have
little in the way of "actual existing relationships" with "concrete
persons."
Get help.
[quote:1756950bf0]I am influenced in my steadfast anti-utopianism here by:
Marx, _The Poverty of Philosophy_
Marx and Engels, _The Development of Socialism from Utopia
to Science_ (The title has been translated otherwise)
Karl Popper, _The Open Society and Its Enemies_.
Quirk would find these helpful in coming to understand the weakness
of his views. I'd like to cite some Hayek here, too, but I'm not
sure what work. I take from Hayek that one cannot meaningfully
talk about the justness of distribution. That is, the following
is weak:
[/quote:1756950bf0]
All facinating stuff. Your knowlege of the works listed above would be
an appreciated contribution... If you where actually able to apply the
knowledge, follow the conversation and make a point.
[quote:1756950bf0][stuff and nonsense - deleted]
I usually don't discuss political philosophy and the undesirability
of imposing blueprints on society. Instead, I point out the blueprints
are self-contradictory.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
What "Blueprint" has your fevered dementia convinced you I am trying to
"impose" on society?
[quote:1756950bf0]In this case, Quirk wants to retain the categories of capitalist
economies but abolish institutions of capitalist economies, thereby
obtaining true free markets.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
No idea what you are taking about. What categories? What institutions?
[quote:1756950bf0]I find this whole approach confused.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
Yes Robert, the real world is a confusing place. Keep your nose burried
in your graphs.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes,
hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the
shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
I'm sure you find this information usefull.
[quote:1756950bf0]But for a simpler self-contradiction, consider Figure 6 in:
http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/OnGaregnani1970.pdf
Here delta is a parameter that expresses consumer's "present-mindedness"
or willingness to defer consumption. And this graph shows that sometimes
when consumers are more willing to defer consumption, the interest
rate is driven up. Yet in so-called neoclassical abstinence theory,
the interest rate should be driven down. Yet the assumptions
underlying this graph are consistent with the assumptions of so-called
neoclassical theory. Clearly, the theory is incorrect. And this has
been known for decades.
Quirk's response is to pretend a willingness to defer consumption
is not related to abstention from consumption. Or perhaps he is
pretending that a theoretical explanation of the return to
capital has nothing to say about the ratio of such returns to the
value of capital. I find his views confused.
[/quote:1756950bf0]
What does "present-mindedness" have to do with //involuntary//
abstainment from consumption? Why should the Interest Rate be related
to "present-mindedness" if consumption is simply reduced by systemic
means and Capital is formed within a context of non-competitive
privelge?
I am sorry you can not understand this. But nevermind, there is no need
to explain my inquiry for the third millionth time as you are plainly
not interested in understanding.
Please provide the link to the Hansson text, this one url will have to
serve as my sole reward for bothing to talk to you. I hope you provide
it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:21 pm
|
|